Federal Case May Redefine Child Porn

Cnet News ^ | 11/30/2006 | Declan McCullagh

[Dallas59]

I have to agree with the courts. Look at Jon Benet and the beauty contests for kids these days. Disgusting in my opinion.

[JamesP81]

Disgusting in my opinion.

Disgusting indeed. Unfortunately, if we give the courts the right to imprison someone for a crime that the prosecutors themselves will tell you they have no evidence for, they WILL NOT stop there. They won't stop until they completely control the internet.

I'm not with the DOJ on this one. This is a sham justification for a grab at power over the internet.

[Red Badger]

I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it..........

[SteveMcKing]

"I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it..."

Which is the antithesis of Law. Its main purpose is to clearly define what is and isn't allowed.

[gdani]

Rather, they argue, his models struck poses that were illegally provocative

Illegally provocative? Good grief. Now they're just making #$&* up.

[L98Fiero]

"I'm not with the DOJ on this one."

I'm not either. I think some of these "photograohers" are pushing it but they are not breaking the law. I don't like the idea of "moving the goalposts" so they are.

It's the nature of free people to push the limits of the law. The goalposts could be moved on anyone.

[beltfed308]

In a federal indictment announced this week, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Pierson, 43, of being a child pornographer--even though even prosecutors acknowledge there's no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an unclothed minor.

This is crazy! Everyone is now a ham sandwich.

[Red Badger]

True, but those words are from a Supreme Court Justice, no less.........

[Dallas59]

A pic of 12 year old in a bikini bent over is not art.

[oceanview]

yes, but the issue is - do you want to put all those parents who participate in those beauty contests, in jail for 25 years as child pornographers?

[microgood]

In a federal indictment announced this week, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Pierson, 43, of being a child pornographer--even though even prosecutors acknowledge there's no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an unclothed minor.

Rather, they argue, his models struck poses that were illegally provocative. "The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine," Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama, said in a statement.

Sounds like quite a stretch to me. Next they will arrest the CEO of Sears for its catalog.

[Dixie Yooper]

I have to agree with the courts

If a law draws a line that can be observed, it can be followed and upheld. This is crazy and depending on who wants to level charges, just about anybody could land in jail for taking pictures of kids whether they are modeling pictures or family pictures.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Disgusting indeed. Unfortunately, if we give the courts the right to imprison someone for a crime that the prosecutors themselves will tell you they have no evidence for, they WILL NOT stop there. They won't stop until they completely control the internet.

I'm not with the DOJ on this one. This is a sham justification for a grab at power over the internet.

Not just the Internet - as the article points out, by the "reasoning" the DOJ is applying in this case Martin Scorcese could have been prosecuted for Jodi Foster's role in "Taxi Driver", IMHO the best movie of the '70s.

Hysteria and cries of "Won't someone think of the children!" do not justify asinine prosecutions or asinine laws.

[JamesP81]

Now they're just making #$&* up

And they're admitting it, too. There was a time when a DA would get tarred and feathered for such nonsense. If they thin what this guy is doing is a threat to society, then talk to the congresscritters and get a law passed. But don't go making up BS out of nothing just because you don't like what someone's doing that isn't illegal.

[Oberon]

I agree with your post.

What this photographer has done is only almost child pornography; therefore he should only almost be prosecuted for it.

[SteveMcKing]

"They won't stop until they completely control the internet."

Some won't stop until girls have to wear bonnets. Others want them in burkas.

"Freedom"? What's that?

[goldstategop]

I do not want children to be depicted as adults in ANY context. Otherwise the laws against child pornography are rendered meaningless. In our culture, there has to be a clear line drawn between right and wrong. That line ends with the sexualization of kids.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Dallas59]

Maybe the way it's published? It just seems unusual to post pics of kids in bikinis on the same page as adult women in bikinis.

[DManA]

You'll have to think twice before brining your pictures of a girl's pool party to be developed.

[oceanview]

this is what the DOJ under Gonzales spends its time doing. this, and prosecuting Curt Weldon's daughter a month before the election.

in the meantime, where are the charges in the cases of the national security leaks? no where.